I know the Fultz angle is a side point but I think the following relates to how we view almost every deal, including the Irving trade.I don't think that's a reasonable take on the moves, actually. I have no problem with people disliking the Fultz trade, but it's pretty tough to say the rest of the moves are all dependent on that being right.
First, he made pretty clear he had Tatum over Fultz. That's a bet on Tatum, not against Fultz. I get your draft board was different, but that doesn't change what he did and why.
Second, he traded for a number one overall pick, one with a lot less risk than Fultz. You might like him less (and you might be right, especially since he's cost-controlled for many fewer years) but your central thesis about apex talents and the moves is disproven by, you know, the moves.
Third, in addition to getting Tatum he has another bite at the apple of a high pick left. So that's a shot to 'win' the transaction too.
There's plenty of ways for Fultz to be an excellent player and this summer to still work out for Celts.
That Danny said or intimated that he had Tatum over Fultz might be true. His actions are consistent with that. But it's also possible that he viewed them as equals, or as Fultz having slightly more upside but not being as valuable as Tatum plus extra consideration.
Whatever these guys -- Ainge, Gilbert or the intern who is currently acting as Cleveland's GM -- say isn't necessarily what they believe. It's what they think is the best message for the public, the players, agents and future free agents. It may also might have the benefit of being true from time to time. But taking any of these comments as wholly candid is unwise in my view.
As applied to this deal, Gilbert has to know that he's taking a PR beating, and whatever he's saying now is his best effort to stem that and accomplish whatever other objectives he deems important.